Water Body Name: | Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
Water Body ID: | CAR7151000020080709112211 |
Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
21889 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7674 is combined with LOE No. 34759 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 19 water samples exceeded the California MCL 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 34759 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 1-Dichloroethane. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for 1, 1-Dichloroethane is 5 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
30624 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | 1, 2-Dibromoethane |
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 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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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. Two samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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 because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 34729 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 2-Dibromoethane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for 1, 2-Dibromoethane is 0.05 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations ). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
29078 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloropropene | 1,2,3-Trichloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) | 1,3-Dichloropropane | 2,2-Dichloropropane | Bromochloromethane | Chloroform | Ethylene dibromide | Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane) |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29489 received a use rating of insufficient because no evalution guideline for these pollutants were available in last assessment. However, evaluation guidelines for Chloroform and 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) are avaialble in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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. Two water samples were collected for 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP), but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of two water samples exceeded the California MCL for chloroform and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 35002 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chloroform | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Chloroform. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for total trihalomethanes is 80 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34998 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chloroform | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Chloroform. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Chloroform criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 470 ug/L (The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria 2009). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34727 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for 1, 2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane(DBCP) is 0.20 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29489 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloropropene | 1,2,3-Trichloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane | 1,3-Dichloropropane | 2,2-Dichloropropane | Bromochloromethane | Chloroform | Ethylene dibromide | Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chloroform, Methylene Bromide, Bromochloromethane, Ethylene Dibromide, 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,2,3,-Trichloropropane, 1,2-Dibromo 3-Chloropropane, 1,3-Dichloropropane, 2,2-Dichloropropane, or 1,1-Dichloropropene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21917 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7674 is combined with LOE No. 34724 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 19 water samples exceeded the California MCL 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34724 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for 1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane is 200 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations ). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21871 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 11 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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 because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 35649 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 1, 1, 2, 2-Tetrachloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 11 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35670 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 1, 1, 2, 2-Tetrachloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.17 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7669 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | Benzene | Carbon tetrachloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.001 mg/l Benzene, 0.0005 mg/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.0005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, and 0.001 mg/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
22259 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46761 is combined with LOE No. 34741 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 46761 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34757 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.60 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34741 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 42 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 27212 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7649 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21890 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 17 water samples exceeded the California MCL 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34792 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 1, 1-Dichloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.057ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34776 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 1-Dichloroethylene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 1, 1-Dichloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 3.2 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
22060 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 19 water samples exceeded the California MCL 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 34813 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2, 4-Trichlorobenzene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene is 5 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34809 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2, 4-Trichlorobenzene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene is 70 ug/l for water and fish consumption. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21722 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | 1,2-Dichloroethane |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46761 is combined with LOE No. 34767 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7669 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | Benzene | Carbon tetrachloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.001 mg/l Benzene, 0.0005 mg/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.0005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, and 0.001 mg/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34783 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2-Dichloroethane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichloroethane. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 1, 2-Dichloroethane criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.38 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34767 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2-Dichloroethane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichloroethane. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 1, 2-Dichloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 99 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 27212 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46761 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7649 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21565 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 19 water samples exceeded the California MCL 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 34735 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-trans-dichlorethylene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for trans-1, 2-Dichloroethene is 10 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34819 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-trans-dichlorethylene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 1, 2-trans-dichlorethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 140,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21733 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | 1,2-Dichloropropane |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46761 is combined with LOE No. 34799 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7649 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34814 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2-Dichloropropane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichloropropane. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 1, 2-Dichloropropane criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.52 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46761 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34799 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2-Dichloropropane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichloropropane. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 1, 2-Dichloropropane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 39 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 27212 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21813 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Aldrin |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 34825 is combined with LOE No. 7634 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 23 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 34821 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Aldrin criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00013 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34805 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Aldrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45993 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Aldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34825 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Aldrin criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 3 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7634 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location inn April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21887 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Aluminum |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 23 water samples exceeded the California secondary MCL 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7679 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water Standards | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35178 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aluminum | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Aluminum. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The California Secondary MCL for aluminum is 0.2 mg/L (Title 22 California Code of Regulations). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR title 22 section 64449. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
28912 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Ametryn | Prometryn | Simetryn | Terbutryn |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | These pollutants are 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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29501 received a use rating of insufficient in laste assessemtn cycle because no evaluation guideline were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for prometryn is available, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometryn and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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 because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 29501 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ametryn | Prometryn | Simetryn | Terbutryn | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fourteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ametryn, Prometryn, Simetryn, or Terbutryn for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. No samples were collected in 2003 from this location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35540 | ||||
Pollutant: | Prometryn | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Prometryn. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometryn is 1 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
21643 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Anthracene |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: 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. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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: | 46763 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene,0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200000ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7652 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 27211 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
30015 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Anthracene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29575 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were avaialble for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Anthracene in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 four sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for anthracene and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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 because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 29579 | ||||
Pollutant: | Anthracene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, or Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32801 | ||||
Pollutant: | Anthracene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 4 samples collected for Anthracene (sum of c0-c4) exceed the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for anthracene in freshwater sediments is 845 ug/kg. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following stations: Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates (715CRIDG1). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 10/25/2005-4/21/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
21814 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Arsenic |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE No. 35196 and 7674 were assessed for the same beneficial uses and same matrix, even the same evaluation guideline, the actual value of the evaluation guideline was changed from 0.05 mg/l to 0.01 mg/l for Arsenic. Thus, those two LOEs werenÂ’t combined, and LOE No. 35196 received a use rating of insufficient information because the minimum sample size of 16 has been reached for the database. LOE Nos. 35223 and 7634 werenÂ’t combined because two different evaluation guideline values: One was assessed with CTR criterion maximum concentration, while another was assessed with CTR criterion continuous concentration. Thus, LOE No. 35223 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objective is met. LOEs 35199 and 7696 were combined to determine a use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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. One composite fish tissue sample was collected, but not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California MCL, and none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7685 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USFWS Biological Effect Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Effect Criteria for the protection of aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 0.25 mg/l Arsenic, and 15 mg/l Copper (USFWS, 1998). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7696 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | Pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35223 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The dissolved arsenic criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for dissolved arsenic is 0.150 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35196 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for arsenic is 0.01 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35199 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for arsenic is 33 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7634 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location inn April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45994 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for arsenic in fish tissue is 0.0034 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. It is assumed that 10% of the total arsenic is present as inorganic arsenic. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values. | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21868 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Atrazine |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 22 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 35266 | ||||
Pollutant: | Atrazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Atrazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Atrazine is 43 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35245 | ||||
Pollutant: | Atrazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Atrazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for Atrazine is 1 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7672 | ||||
Pollutant: | Atrazine | Simazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Sixteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.001 mg/l Atrazine, and 0.004 mg/l Simazine (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sixteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. No samples were collected from the Imperial Dame grate location in 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
30014 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Atroton | Prometon (Prometone) | Secbumeton |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29502 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline was available for prometon in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometon and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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 because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 35689 | ||||
Pollutant: | Prometon (Prometone) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Prometon. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometon is 98 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29502 | ||||
Pollutant: | Atroton | Prometon (Prometone) | Secbumeton | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fourteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Atroton, Prometon, or Secbumeton for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. No samples were collected in 2003 from this location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
29205 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29495 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were avaiable for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) is available, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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. Six water samples were collected for Azinphos Methyl (Guthion), but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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 because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 35308 | ||||
Pollutant: | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Azinphos Methyl (Guthion) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life is a maximum of 0.01 ug/l. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29495 | ||||
Pollutant: | Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Azinphos, methyl, or Azinphos, ethyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21695 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Benzene |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. LOE No. 46761 is combined with LOE No. 35356 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Also carbon tetrachloride had different total sample size from all other pollutants, and was separated from LOE No. 46761 and used in LOE No. 46762. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 46761 and 35356 are combined to determine the use rating. 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 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 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 46761 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7649 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 27212 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34995 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Benzene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for Benzene is 1 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35356 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Benzene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Benzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 71 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21644 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Benzo(a)anthracene |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7696 is combined with LOE No. 35331 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7696 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | Pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7662 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene, and 11 ug/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35331 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzo(a)anthracene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Benz(a)anthracene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Benzo(a)anthracene is 1050 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
22299 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 17 water smaples exceeded the California MCLs. 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7623 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) of 1450 ug/kg for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects (Macdonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35181 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Benzo(a)pyrene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Benzo(a)Pyrene is 1450 ug/Kg dry weight (Macdonald et al. 2000) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
21779 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Benzo[b]fluoranthene |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7662 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle.Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: 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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 11 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7662 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene, and 11 ug/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21830 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Benzo[k]fluoranthene |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7662 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle.Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: 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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 11 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7662 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene, and 11 ug/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
30625 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin |
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 section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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. Six water sample results were collected, but not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.0006 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of five sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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 because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 46350 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Bifenthrin. Six sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.0006 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of bifenthrin does not exceed 0.0006 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.004 ug/L. Mixtures of bifenthrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35418 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Bifenthrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for bifenthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.43 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.43 ug/g is the geometric mean of 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 | ||||
NPDES Permit for Visalia. | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
29092 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | These pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 29809 and 29574 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available. However guidelines for Dacthal and Dimethoate are available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 six water samples exceeded theUSEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal, and none of 6 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dimethoate. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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 because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 35343 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dacthal | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Dacthal. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for dacthal (DCPA) for the consumption of water and fish is 0.008 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35010 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dimethoate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Dimethoate. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dimethoate is 43 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35005 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dacthal | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Dacthal. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal 6600 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29809 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29574 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dacthal | Mirex | Oxadiazon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Dacthal, Mirex, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
30627 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Boron |
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 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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 six water samples exceeded the California State Notification level criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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 because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 33648 | ||||
Pollutant: | Boron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 6 samples exceeded the California State Notification Level criterion. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents shall be present in amounts that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The California State Notification Level criterion for boron is 1 mg/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Drinking Water Notification Levels and Response Levels | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected at the following station 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on 10/25/2005, 5/3/2006, 5/8/2007, 10/23/2007, 4/22/2008 and 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
21496 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Bromoform |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. LOE No. 35206 is combined with LOE No. 46761 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 27212 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35206 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bromoform | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Bromoform. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Bromoform criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 360 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35227 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bromoform | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Bromoform. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Bromoform criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 4.3 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46761 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7649 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21748 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Cadmium |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 35229 and 7674 were combined. LOEs 35249 and 7696 were also combined. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 23 water samples exceeded the California MCLs, none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 45995 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for cadmium in fish tissue is 2.2 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35249 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for cadmium is 4.98 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35229 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Maximum Contaminant Level for cadmium in the Basin Plan is 0.005 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32834 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 6 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for cadmium. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples collected at station 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7696 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | Pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7693 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Silver | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the following limits: 10 ug/l Cadmium, 50 ug/l Lead, 4 ug/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 100 ug/l Methoxychlor, and 50 ug/l Silver (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7631 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependant Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21870 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Carbon tetrachloride |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE Nos. 46762 and 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Also carbon tetrachloride had different total sample size from all other pollutants, and was separated from LOE No. 46761 and used in LOE No. 46762. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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 because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 35273 | ||||
Pollutant: | Carbon tetrachloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Carbon tetrachloride. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Carbon tetrachloride criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 4.4 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 27212 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7669 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | Benzene | Carbon tetrachloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.001 mg/l Benzene, 0.0005 mg/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.0005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, and 0.001 mg/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7649 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46762 | ||||
Pollutant: | Carbon tetrachloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35293 | ||||
Pollutant: | Carbon tetrachloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Carbon tetrachloride. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for Carbon tetrachloride is 0.5 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
28952 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29493 and 29572 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for some pollutants are available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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. Six water samples were collected for each Malathion and Parathion, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 35557 | ||||
Pollutant: | Parathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The criterion continuous concentration for Parathion, Ethyl is 0.013 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35608 | ||||
Pollutant: | Malathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The UC Davis Criteria for Malathion for the protection of aquatic organisms is a 4 day average of 0.028 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: l. Organophosphate insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:1-48. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29493 | ||||
Pollutant: | Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, or Tokuthion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29572 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Parathion, or Methyl Parathion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35361 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methidathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Methidathion. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion is 0.86 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
21823 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Chlordane |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 one fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and none of four sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. None of 17 water samples exceeded the Califorina drinking water MCLs 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 32849 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 4 samples collected for Chlordane (Sum of trans-Chlordane, cis-Chlordane, cis-Nonachlor, trans-Nonachlor, and Oxychlordane) exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for Chlordane in freshwater sediments is 17.6 ug/kg. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46003 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Chlordane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45996 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total chlordane in fish tissue is 3.9 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 33225 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 6 samples exceeded the criterion continuous concentration for chlordane (total). Total chlordane is assessed as the sum of cis-chlordane, trans-chlordane, cis-nonachlor, trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The chlordane criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0043 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples collected at station 715CRIDG1 Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 33175 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The reporting limit for all 6 of the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria and thus the data were not used in this assessment. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The total chlordane criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00057 ug/L. This value corresponds to total chlordane, eg., the sum of cis-chlordane, trans-chlordane, cis-nonachlor, trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane. (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples collected at station 715CRIDG1 Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7634 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location inn April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21724 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Chloride |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 17 water samples exceeded the California secondary MCL 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7679 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water Standards | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 33105 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 6 samples exceeded the criteria of 230 mg/L. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Chloride criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 230000 ug/L (230 mg/L)(USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at station 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on 10/25/2005, 5/3/2006, 5/8/2007, 10/23/2007, 4/22/2008, and 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
21878 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Chlorobenzene (mono) |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46763 is combined with LOE No. 35314 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35334 is combined with LOE No. 7674 for the aforementioned reasons. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 46763 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene,0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200000ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35334 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorobenzene (mono) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorobenzene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for monochlorobenzene is 70 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35314 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorobenzene (mono) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorobenzene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Chlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 21,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 27211 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7652 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
30630 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Chlorodibromomethane |
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 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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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 because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 35217 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorodibromomethane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Dibromochloromethane. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Dibromochloromethane criteria is 0.401 ug/L for the protection of human health from consumption of water and organisms (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
30632 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos |
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 section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 four water samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) , and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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 because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 35422 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for chlorpyrifos is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.77 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg and Weston, 2007). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35190 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six samples total were collected. None of the samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.015 ug/L (Siepmann and Finlayson 2000, with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46004 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for chlorpyrifos in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21842 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Chromium (total) |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE No. 33924 and 7634 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, two different values were used in the assessment: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC), and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 33924 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. LOE No. 35230 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. LOEs 34303 and 7674 were combined to determine a use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 23 water samples exceeded the California MCL, and none of 6 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 33924 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chromium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 6 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for chromium III or the criteria for chromium VI. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each chromium III sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. The criterion continuous concentration (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for chromium VI is 11 ug/L and is not hardness dependent. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples collected at stations 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 10/25/05 and 10/29/08. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7634 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location inn April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34303 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chromium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 6 samples exceeded the MCL for total Chromium. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Department of Public Health's Maximum Contaminate Level (MCL) in drinking water for Total Chromium is 0.05mg/L or 50ug/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples collected at stations 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 10/25/05 and 10/29/08. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35230 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chromium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Chromium. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for chromium is 111 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
21919 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Chrysene (C1-C4) |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 11 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of four sediment samples exceeded the sediment qaulity guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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 because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7662 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene, and 11 ug/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32869 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chrysene (C1-C4) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 4 samples collected for Chrysene (Sum of c0-c3) exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for Chrysene in freshwater sediments is 1290 ug/kg. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
21824 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Copper |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7679 is combined with LOE No. 35276 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35296 is combined with LOE No. 7696 for the aforementioned reasons. Although LOE No. 7618 and 32898 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, two different water quality objective values were used in the assessment: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC), and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 32898 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 23 water samples exceeded the California drinking water MCL, and none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7618 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7685 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USFWS Biological Effect Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Effect Criteria for the protection of aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 0.25 mg/l Arsenic, and 15 mg/l Copper (USFWS, 1998). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7679 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water Standards | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7652 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7696 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | Pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32898 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 6 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for copper. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples collected at station 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35276 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Copper. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The California Secondary MCL for copper is 1.0 mg/L (Title 22 California Code of Regulations). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR title 22 section 64449. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35296 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Copper. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for copper is 149 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
30635 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Cyanazine |
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 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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 one water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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 because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 35321 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyanazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
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 data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cyanazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Cyanazine is 4.8 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
30634 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin |
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 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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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. Six water sample results were collected for each of these pollutants, but the results are not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of five sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) for Cyfluthrin and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 35430 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Cyfluthrin, total. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for cyfluthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.1 ug/g is the geometric mean of 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: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46373 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cyfluthrin, total. Six sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.00005 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of cyfluthrin does not exceed 0.00005 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.0003 ug/L. Mixtures of cyfluthrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
32147 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda |
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 section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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. Six water sample results were collected for each of these pollutants, but the results are not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of five sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 35445 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Cyhalothrin, lambda, total. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for lambda-cyhalothrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.44 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.44 ug/g is the geometric mean of 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: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46334 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cyhalothrin, lambda, total. Six sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.0005 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of lambda-cyhalothrin does not exceed 0.0005 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.001 ug/L. Mixtures of lambda-cyhalothrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
32148 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin |
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 section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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. Six water sample results were collected for each of these pollutants, but the results are not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of five sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 46364 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin, total. Six sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.0002 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of cypermethrin does not exceed 0.0002 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.001 ug/L. Mixtures of cypermethrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35461 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin, total. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for cypermethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.3 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.3 ug/g is the geometric mean of 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: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
21602 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 17 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 34548 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The method detection limit for all 6 of the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria: thus the data was not used in this assessment. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 4,4'-DDE criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00022 ug/L (USEPA Nationally Recommended Criteria, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples collected at stations 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34547 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The method detection limit for all 6 of the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria: thus the data was not used in this assessment. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 4,4'-DDD criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00031 ug/L (USEPA Nationally Recommended Criteria, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples collected at stations 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34546 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The method detection limit for all 6 of the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria: thus the data was not used in this assessment. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 4,4' DDT criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00022 ug/L (USEPA Nationally Recommended Criteria, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples collected at stations 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34529 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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: | The detection limit for DDT(o,p) is 0.001 ug/l, and the reporting limit for that is 0.002 ug/l. Since the WQS is smaller than the reporting limit, none of samples can be counted. In addition the detection limit for DDT(p,p') is 0.002 ug/l and the reporting limit is 0.005 ug/l, none of the samples can be counted. The water body was assessed for the sum of DDT(o,p') and DDT(p,p'). | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 4,4' DDT criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.001 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples collected at stations 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32959 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 4 samples collected for Total DDTs exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for Total DDTs (DDD + DDE + DDT) in freshwater sediments is 572 ug/kg. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32953 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 4 samples collected for Sum DDT exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDT (o,p' + p,p') in freshwater sediments is 62.9 ug/kg. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32932 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 4 samples collected for Sum DDE exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDE (o,p' + p,p') in freshwater sediments is 31.3 ug/kg. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32890 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 4 samples collected for Sum DDD exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDD (o,p' + p,p') in freshwater sediments is 28.0 ug/kg. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7643 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) for pp'-DDT of 1.1 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
30636 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin |
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 section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 five sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and none of six water samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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 because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 35488 | ||||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Deltamethrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.79 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.79 ug/g is the geometric mean of 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: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46335 | ||||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Deltamethrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC) of 0.02 ug/L, which is the geometric mean of the LOEC and NOEC, as determined in a 280 day toxicity study with the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. (USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
21742 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 17 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Games (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 45952 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for diazinon in fish tissue is 1,500 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35492 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for diazinon is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 11 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 11 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for diazinon 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: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7690 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDFG Hazardous Assessment Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Fish and Games (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.16 ug/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35212 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater chronic value for diazinon is 0.1 ug/L, expressed as a continuous concentration (Finlayson, 2004). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality for diazinon. Memorandum to J. Karkoski, Central Valley RWQCB. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigation Unit, CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
21694 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7662 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: 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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 11 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7662 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene, and 11 ug/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21879 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Dichlorobromomethane |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 17 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 27212 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7649 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35201 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dichlorobromomethane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Bromodichloromethane. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Bromodichloromethane criteria is 0.56 ug/L for the protection of human health from consumption of water and organisms (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46761 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21743 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Dichloromethane |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle.However, use ratings of LOE Nos. 27213 and 7646 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: 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. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7646 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dichloromethane | Methyl bromide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six water samples were collected in 5/2002 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 48 ug/l Methyl Bromide, and 5 ug/l Dichloromethane (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected in 5/2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 27213 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dichloromethane | Methyl bromide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six water samples were collected in 5/2002 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 48 ug/l Methyl Bromide, and 5 ug/l Dichloromethane (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected in 5/2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
30644 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Dichlorvos |
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 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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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 because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 35258 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dichlorvos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Dichlorvos. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Dichlorvos is 7.2 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
21725 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7696 is combined with LOE No. 35326 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 17 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration, none of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue evalaution guideline. 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 45953 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for dieldrin in fish tissue is 0.32 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35326 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for dieldrin is 61.8 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35325 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Dieldrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35303 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Dieldrin criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35282 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Dieldrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7696 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | Pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7634 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location inn April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45954 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Dieldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
30646 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan |
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 section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 six water samples exceeded the USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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 because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 45955 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan, Total. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Total endosulfan was calculated as the sum of endosulfan l and endosulfan ll. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endosulfan (l and ll) in fish tissue is 13,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 33090 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 6 samples exceeded the criteria. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The endosulfan criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L. This value corresponds to the sum of alpha-endosulfan and beta-endosulfan (USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at station 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on 10/25/2005, 5/3/2006, 5/8/2007, 10/23/2007, 4/22/2008, and 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45963 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan, Total. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Total endosulfan was calculated as the sum of endosulfan l and endosulfan ll. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Endosulfan concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21642 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan sulfate |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 35052 and 46763 were combined. LOEs 35056 and 7652 were also combined to determine the use rating. 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 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 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms only from these waters. 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 46763 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene,0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200000ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35056 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan sulfate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan sulfate. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endosulfan Sulfate criteria for endosulfan sulfate to protect human health for waters that include the designated use of MUN is 110 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35052 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan sulfate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan sulfate. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endosulfan Sulfate criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 27211 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7652 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21566 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Endrin |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 45964, 45965 and 35092 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. All other LOEs are combined for a use rating determination with corresponding LOEs based on the same beneficial uses, same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 35066 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endrin criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.76 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7634 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location inn April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7652 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7696 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | Pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 27211 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35061 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.81ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35072 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.036 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35073 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for sum of endrin is 207 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45964 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endrin in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45965 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46763 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene,0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200000ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21990 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Endrin aldehyde |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 35054 and 46763 were combined to determine the use rating. 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 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 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 46763 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene,0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200000ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7652 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 27211 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35084 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin aldehyde | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin Aldehyde. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endrin Aldehyde criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.81ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
21921 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Enterococcus |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.21 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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. Two of 16 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective for water contact recration and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 26 samples is needed for application of table 3.2. 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 because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7612 | ||||
Pollutant: | Enterococcus | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, 2 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedance were found in samples collected on 10/02/2002 at Taylor Lake, and 11/04/2003 at the Imperial Dam grates (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan:In the Colorado River the maximum allowable Enterococcus density is 305 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 10/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003 The exceedances were found in samples collected from 10/02/2002 through 11/04/2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7609 | ||||
Pollutant: | Enterococcus | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, 2 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007). The exceedance were found in samples collected on 10/02/2002 at Taylor Lake, and 11/04/2003 at the Imperial Dam grates (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan:In the Colorado River the maximum allowable Enterococcus density is 61 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 10/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003 The exceedances were found in samples collected from 10/02/2002 through 11/04/2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 33246 | ||||
Pollutant: | Enterococcus | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The one sample collected did not exceed the entercoccus objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The entercoccus concentration shall not exceed more than 61/100ml. Basin Plan for the Colorado River Basin. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected from the Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates station 715CRIDG1. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected in October 2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21880 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 16 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective for water contact recreation and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 26 samples is needed for application of table 3.2. 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 because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7704 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan:In the Colorado River the maximum allowable E. coli density is 1175 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 10/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7701 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan:In the Colorado River the maximum allowable E. coli density is 235 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 10/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 33245 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The one sample collected did not exceed the E. coli objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The E. coli concentration shall not exceed more than 235/100ml. Basin Plan for the Colorado River Basin. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected from the Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates station 715CRIDG1. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected in October 2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
32149 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate |
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 section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 five sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and none of six water samples exceeded the the median lethal concentration (LC50). These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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 because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 35435 | ||||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, total. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.5 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.5 ug/g is the geometric mean of 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: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46357 | ||||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, total. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.13 ug/L, as determined in a 96 hour toxicity test using the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. (USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
21999 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Ethylbenzene |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 7674is combined with LOE No. 35120 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35116 is combined with LOE No. 46763 for the aforementioned reasons. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 27211 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46763 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene,0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200000ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35120 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ethylbenzene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Ethylbenzene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for Ethylbenzene is 300 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35116 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ethylbenzene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Ethylbenzene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Ethylbenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 29,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7652 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
30647 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin |
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 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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 three water samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50), and none of two sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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 because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 46448 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Fenpropathrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin, 2.2 ug/L, is the median lethal concentration (LC50) as determined in a 96 hour toxicity test using the bluegill sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus. (USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/23/2007-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35463 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Fenpropathrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1 ug/g is the geometric mean of 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: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/23/2007-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
22044 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Fluoranthene |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 35511 and 7696 were combined to determine a use rating. 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 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 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7696 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | Pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35511 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fluoranthene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Fluoranthene (sum of Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene/Pyrenes, C1-). | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for fluoranthene is 2230 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 27211 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7652 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46763 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene,0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200000ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
22045 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Fluorene |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 32984 and 7696 were combined to determine the use rating. 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 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 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7696 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | Pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46763 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene,0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200000ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7652 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 27211 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32984 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fluorene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 4 samples collected for fluorene (Sum of c0-c3) exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for fluorene in freshwater sediments is 536 ug/kg. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
21875 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 17 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the drinking water MCL, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue evalution guideline. 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 35160 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00021 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45975 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7634 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location inn April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35109 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0038 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35093 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00021 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21747 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 17 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the drinking water MCL, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 35149 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor Epoxide criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0038 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45976 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for heptachlor epoxide in fish tissue is 0.93 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Public Health Goal for Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide in Drinking Water | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45977 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor Epoxide concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7634 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location inn April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35145 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor Epoxide criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00010 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35128 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Heptachlor Epoxide criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00011 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
21800 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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. Six new water samples were collected in current assessment cycle, but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of 17 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 45986 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobenzene. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for hexachlorobenzene in fish tissue is 2.8 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values. | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35524 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Hexachlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00075 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35520 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Hexachlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00077 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21831 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorobutadiene |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46762 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Also carbon tetrachloride had different total sample size from all other pollutants, and was separated from LOE No. 46761 and used LOE No. 46762. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 35546 and 7649 were combined to determine the use rating. 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 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 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7649 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 27212 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35546 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorobutadiene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobutadiene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Hexachlorobutadiene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 50 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46761 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35566 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorobutadiene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobutadiene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Hexachlorobutadiene criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.44 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21567 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7662 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle.Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: 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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 11 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7662 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene, and 11 ug/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21730 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Lead |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and none of five sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline line. 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 35569 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Lead. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for lead is 128 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32919 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 6 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for lead. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples collected at stations 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7693 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Silver | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the following limits: 10 ug/l Cadmium, 50 ug/l Lead, 4 ug/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 100 ug/l Methoxychlor, and 50 ug/l Silver (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7637 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR hardness dependent criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Lead,Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21801 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE Nos. 35105, 7693 and 7674 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, all three LOEs were assessed based on three different water quality objectives. Thus, none of them combined for a use rating determination, and LOE No. 35105 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size. LOE 35125 is combined with 7696 to determine the use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 17 water samples exceeded either the drinking water MCL or the Basin Plan water quality objective. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 35105 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The BHC, gamma(Lindane) criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.019 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35088 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The HCH, Gamma (Lindane) criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of organisms is 0.063 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7696 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | Pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7693 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Silver | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the following limits: 10 ug/l Cadmium, 50 ug/l Lead, 4 ug/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 100 ug/l Methoxychlor, and 50 ug/l Silver (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35124 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The gamma-BHC (Lindane) criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.95 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35125 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Lindane (gamma-HCH) is 4.99 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45966 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for lindane in fish tissue is 4.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values. | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45974 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Lindane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21909 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Manganese |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 23 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7679 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water Standards | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35629 | ||||
Pollutant: | Manganese | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Manganese. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The California Secondary MCL for manganese is 0.05 mg/L (Title 22 California Code of Regulations). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR title 22 section 64449. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
21832 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Mercury |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 35655 is combined with LOE No. 7653 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives.LOE Nos. 46763 and 35651, LOE Nos. 7696 and 7640, and LOE Nos. 7696 and 35675 are combined for a use rating determination for the aforementioned reasons. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, none of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 1 fish tissue sample exceeded the USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue. 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 35675 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for mercury is 1.06 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35655 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The mercury criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms for mercury is 0.050 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35651 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Mercury criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.051 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 27211 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7696 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | Pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46763 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene,0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200000ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7652 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7640 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NRWQC criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 1.4 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2002). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPA | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45987 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury. Seven composites were generated from one species: largemouth bass. Composites comprised of 1 fish per composite. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue of trophic level 4 fish (150 - 500 mm; fillet wet weight) is 0.20 mg/kg. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Final. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. EPA-823-R-01-001. January 2001 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21728 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Methoxychlor |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7674 is combined with LOE No. 35531 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 23 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7628 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methoxychlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USEPA criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | USEPA Drinking Water Criteria of 40 ug/l for the protection of drinking water uses (USEPA, 2002). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPA | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7693 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Silver | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the following limits: 10 ug/l Cadmium, 50 ug/l Lead, 4 ug/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 100 ug/l Methoxychlor, and 50 ug/l Silver (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35531 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methoxychlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Methoxychlor. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for Methoxychlor is 30 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35551 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methoxychlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Methoxychlor. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The criterion continuous concentration for Methoxychlor is 0.3 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
30649 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion |
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 section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 six water samples exceeded theCalifornia Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria, and none of four sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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 because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 35596 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion is 0.08 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Hazard Assessment of the Insecticide Methyl to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento River System | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35465 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for methyl parathion is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 6 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 6 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for methyl parathion 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: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
21729 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7679 is combined with LOE No. 35657 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 19 water samples exceeded the secondary drinking water MCL. 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7679 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water Standards | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35657 | ||||
Pollutant: | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for MTBE. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The California Secondary MCL for MTBE is 0.005 mg/L (Title 22 California Code of Regulations). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR title 22 section 64449. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21793 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Methyl bromide |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 27213 and 7646 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: 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. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7646 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dichloromethane | Methyl bromide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six water samples were collected in 5/2002 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 48 ug/l Methyl Bromide, and 5 ug/l Dichloromethane (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected in 5/2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 27213 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dichloromethane | Methyl bromide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six water samples were collected in 5/2002 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 48 ug/l Methyl Bromide, and 5 ug/l Dichloromethane (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected in 5/2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
30650 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Mirex |
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 section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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. Six water sample and one fish tissue sampels were collected but none of them were used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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 because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 35591 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mirex | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The criterion continuous concentration for Mirex is 0.001 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45988 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mirex | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Mirex. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for mirex in fish tissue is 0.28 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Expedited Cancer Potency Values and Proposed Regulatory Levels for Certain Proposition 65 Carcinogens. | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21991 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Molinate |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Three line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 35616 and 7674 were combined. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 23 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35616 | ||||
Pollutant: | Molinate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Molinate. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for Molinate is 20 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35634 | ||||
Pollutant: | Molinate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Molinate. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Molinate is 0.6 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
21794 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Naphthalene |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 32564 and 7696 were combined to determine the final use rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of two water sample exceeded the California State Notification Level criterion for naphthalene. 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7696 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | Pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 31616 | ||||
Pollutant: | Naphthalene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 2 samples exceeded the California State Notification Level criterion. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents shall be present in amounts that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The California State Notification Level criterion for naphthalene is 0.017 mg/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Drinking Water Notification Levels and Response Levels | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data was collected at the following station 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on 10/25/2005 and 5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32564 | ||||
Pollutant: | Naphthalene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 4 samples collected for naphthalene (Sum of c0-c4) exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for naphthalene in freshwater sediments is 561 ug/kg. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station: Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
22296 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Nickel |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. Although LOE No. 32940 and 7637 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, these two LOEs were assessed based on two different water quality objectives values: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC) and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 32940 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. The following LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating: 35662 and 46763; 35682 and 7674; 35362 and 7696. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria , and none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 27211 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7696 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | Pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7652 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7637 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR hardness dependent criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Lead,Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32940 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 6 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for nickel. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples collected at station 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates) | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46763 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene,0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200000ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35682 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for nickel is 0.1 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35662 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Nickel criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 4,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35362 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for nickel is 48.6 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
21992 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Nitrate |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 17 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL for Nitrate (as NO3), none of six water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL for Nitrate (as N), and noneof six water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL for Nitrate+Nitrite (sum as nitrogen). 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 35533 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N). | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) is 10 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35367 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrate as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for nitrate (as N) is 10 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
22046 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, Nitrite |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 23 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35535 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrite | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrite as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for nitrite (as N) is 1.0 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
30651 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) |
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 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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 five water samples exceeded the USEPA Temperature and pH-Dependent values of the CCC and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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 because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 34571 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 5 samples exceed the water USEPA Temperature and pH-Dependent values of the CCC (Chronic Criterion) for Fish Early Life Stages Present for ammonia. 3 of the 5 data samples are reported as Non-Detect (ND). These 3 ND values are less than or equal to the water quality standard, the value will be considered as meeting the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin Region (RWQCB 2006): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There is no water quality objective for ammonia in the Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin. Instead, the USEPA criteria for ammonia was used as Temperature and pH-Dependent Values of the CCC (Chronic Criterion)for Fish Early Life Stages Present. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | 1999 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Sample was collected at 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
28910 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29499 and 29575 received use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available. However, evaluation guidelines for Phorate and Phosmet are available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Phorate, and none of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Phosmet . These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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 because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 35664 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phosmet | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Phosmet. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Phosmet is 5.6 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35621 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phorate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Phorate. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Phorate is 2 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29575 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Tedion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29499 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, or Trichlorfon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
30652 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved |
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 section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 five water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 26 samples is needed for application of table 3.2. 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 because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 32342 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the five samples exceeded the water quality objective for dissolved oxygen. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Colorado River Water Quality Control Plan 'The dissolved Oxygen concentration shall not be reduced below the following minimum levels at any time: for waters designated as WARM-5.0 mg/L.' | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at station 715CRIDG1 - Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected during October 2005, May 2006, May 2007, October 2007, and April 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
30653 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) |
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 section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section 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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 five sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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 because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 35456 | ||||
Pollutant: | PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons). | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for fluoranthene is 2230 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
22047 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollution |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7696 is combined with LOE No. 33420 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 17 wate samples exceeded the California drinking water MCL, none of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7696 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | Pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32995 | ||||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The method detection limit for all the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria: thus the data was not used in this assessment. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The total PCB criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00017 ug/L. This value corresponds to total PCBs, eg., the sum of all congener or isomer or homolog or aroclor analyses (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples collected at station 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on 10/25/2005, 5/3/2006, 5/8/2007, 10/23/2007, 4/22/2008, and 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 33414 | ||||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 2 samples exceeded the criterion continuous concentration for total PCB. The water body was assessed for the 3 aroclors that were contained within the data set and they include aroclor 1248, aroclor 1254, and aroclor 1260. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The total PCB criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.014 ug/L. This value corresponds to the sum of aroclors 1242, 1254, 1221, 1232, 1248, 1260, and 1016 (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples collected at station 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 4/22/2008 and 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 33420 | ||||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 4 samples collected for Total PCBs exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for total PCB is 676 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 10/25/2005, 5/3/2006, 10/23/2007 and 4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45997 | ||||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for polychlorinated biphenyls in fish tissue is 2.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45998 | ||||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total PCB concentration of 500 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
25439 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Perchlorate |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is 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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7615 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment due to following reasons, and the same reason applied for the LOE No. 35601 in receiving a use rating of insufficient information. The reasons are as follows: Two water samples exceeded the water quality objective. When compared to the drinking water 6 ug/l threshold for human health, there were 2 exceedances in October 2002 out of 23 total water samples taken over all the sampling years. However, not enough samples were collected and reported to develop an accurate assessment of perchlorate in the Colorado River. A remedial effort has been underway since October 2002 to remove perchlorate from a source near Henderson, NV. Because of this, monitoring data collected before October 2002 are no longer representative of perchlorate in the River. A recent report on the progress of remedial efforts reported that the concentration of perchlorate in this segment of the Colorado River (monitoring location at the diversion to the California Aquaeduct) is decreasing. Monitoring data collected since October 2002 indicates generally declining concentrations of perchlorate (USEPA, 2006; SWAMP, 2007). In 2005 at the Colorado River diversion to the California Aqueduct, twelve monthly samples reported perchlorate concentrations below 4 ppb (USEPA, 2006). From the late 2005 to 2008, six more samples collected through the SWAMP, and none of them showed exceedance. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification against 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. Two out of 17 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL used to interpret the water quality objective in October 2002 and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. However, not enough samples were collected and reported to develop an accurate assessment of perchlorate in the Colorado River. 4. Monitoring data collected since October 2002 by the SWAMP program and other indicates generally declining concentrations of perchlorate. In 2005 at the Colorado River diversion to the California Aqueduct, twelve monthly samples collected by others reported perchlorate concentrations below 4 ppb. Recent data also showed that impairment was no longer observed. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because there is insufficient information was collected and reported to accurately assess perchlorate in the Colorado River. |
State Board Staff 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: | 35601 | ||||
Pollutant: | Perchlorate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Perchlorate. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for Perchlorate is 6 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7615 | ||||
Pollutant: | Perchlorate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, 2 exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). The exceedences were found in samples collected on 10/01/2002 at Taylor Lake, and 10/02/02 at Parker Dam (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 0.006 mg/l for the protection of human health (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003 The exceedances were found in samples collected from 10/01/2002 through 10/02/2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
30654 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Permethrin, total |
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 section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Four water samples were collected, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. One of five sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 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 placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 46456 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin, total | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin, Total. Four sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.002 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of permethrin does not exceed 0.002 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.01 ug/L. Mixtures of permethrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/23/2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35494 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin, total | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin, Total. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for permethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 8.9 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 8.9 ug/g is the geometric mean of 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: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
21795 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Phenanthrene |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7696 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | Pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32824 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phenanthrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 4 samples collected for Phenanthrene (sum of c0-c4) exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for Phenanthrene in freshwater sediments is 1170 ug/kg. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following stations: Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
29222 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Propazine | Terbuthylazine |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Propazine, and Terbuthylazine consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. LOE No. 29503 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Propazine is available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3.None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Propazine 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 29503 | ||||
Pollutant: | Propazine | Terbuthylazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fourteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Propazine, or Terbuthylazine for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. No samples were collected in 2003 from this location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35581 | ||||
Pollutant: | Propazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Propazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Propazine is 25 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
21746 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Pyrene |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 35440 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Pyrene (sum of Pyrene and Fluoranthene/Pyrenes, C1-). | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for pyrene is 1520 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 27211 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7696 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | Pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7652 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
28922 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Salinity |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29510 received a use rating of infufficient in last assessment cycle because no evalution guideline was available for this pollutnat. However, a water quality objective for salinity is available in current assessement cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 Five water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 26 samples is needed for application of table 3.2. 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 because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 34572 | ||||
Pollutant: | Salinity/TDS/Chlorides | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 0 of the 5 samples were greater than the site specific objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Colorado River Basin Plan has a site specific numeric objective for stating: "The flow-weighted average annual numeric criteria for salinity (total dissolved solids) were established at three locations on the lower Colorado River: Imperial Dam, AZ-CA ...................879 mg/L." | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples collected at stations 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29510 | ||||
Pollutant: | Salinity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Three water samples were collected from 4/2003 through 4/2004 at 2 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guideline for Salinity for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Three water samples were collected. Water samples were collected from 4/2003 through 4/2004 upstream of the Imperial Dam, and 11/2003, and 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam Grates. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
22048 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Selenium |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 30277 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment because no evalution guideline was available for this pollutant. LOE No. 45999 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 17 water samples exceeded the California drinking water MCL, and none of one fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 45999 | ||||
Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for selenium in fish tissue is 7.4 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A background dietary consumption rate of 0.114 mg/day is applied for this micronutrient. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 30277 | ||||
Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Selenium for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21910 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Silver |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE No. 32961 and 7637 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, these two LOEs were not combined for a use rating determination because these two were assessed based on two different water quality objectives values: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC) and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 32961 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. LOEs 35602 and 7679 were combined to determine a final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7637 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR hardness dependent criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Lead,Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7679 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water Standards | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35602 | ||||
Pollutant: | Silver | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Silver. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The California Secondary MCL for silver is 0.1 mg/L (Title 22 California Code of Regulations). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR title 22 section 64449. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32961 | ||||
Pollutant: | Silver | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 6 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for silver. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion maximum concentrations (1-hour average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples collected at station 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7693 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Silver | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the following limits: 10 ug/l Cadmium, 50 ug/l Lead, 4 ug/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 100 ug/l Methoxychlor, and 50 ug/l Silver (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21869 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Simazine |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 22 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 35622 | ||||
Pollutant: | Simazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Simazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Simazine is 90 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35625 | ||||
Pollutant: | Simazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Simazine. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for Simazine is 4 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7672 | ||||
Pollutant: | Atrazine | Simazine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Sixteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.001 mg/l Atrazine, and 0.004 mg/l Simazine (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sixteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. No samples were collected from the Imperial Dame grate location in 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
21616 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Specific Conductance |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 22 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 26 samples is needed for application of table 3.2. 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 because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7682 | ||||
Pollutant: | Specific Conductance | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen measurements were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total measurements, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 1600 umhos for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water Standards | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Measurements were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water quality measurements were collected. Water quality measurements were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Measurements were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were measured in May and October 2002. An extra measurement was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35274 | ||||
Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: None of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Conductivity(Us). | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The California Secondary MCL for specific conductance is 1600 uS/cm (Title 22 California Code of Regulations). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR title 22 section 64449. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
21957 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Styrene |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7656 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: 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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 6 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7656 | ||||
Pollutant: | Styrene | Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six water samples were collected in 5/2002 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.1 mg/l Styrene, and 0.15 mg/l Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected in 5/2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
32135 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Sulfates |
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 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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 six water samples exceeded the California Secondary MCLs and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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 because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 34568 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sulfates | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 6 samples were greater than the Secondary MCLs objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) apply to ambient waters under the Colorado River Basin Region's narrative "Chemical Constituents" objective. The SMCL for Sulfates (SO4) is 500 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples collected at stations 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
21576 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment cycle, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 7649 and 35378 are combined with each other for a use rating determination but the total sample size wasn't sufficient to determine if water quality objective is met therefore both of LOEs received a use rating of insufficient information. LOEs 35374 and 46761 were combined to determine a final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7649 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46761 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35378 | ||||
Pollutant: | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Tetrachloroethylene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Tetrachloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.8 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 27212 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35374 | ||||
Pollutant: | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Tetrachloroethylene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Tetrachloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 8.85 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
22049 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Thiobencarb/Bolero |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 23 water samples exceeded either the secondary drinking water MCL 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35383 | ||||
Pollutant: | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Thiobencarb. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Thiobencarb is 1.4 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7679 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water Standards | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35387 | ||||
Pollutant: | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Thiobencarb. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The California Secondary MCL for thiobencarb is 0.001 mg/L (Title 22 California Code of Regulations). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR title 22 section 64449. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
22055 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Toluene |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 35397 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toluene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Toluene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for Toluene is 150 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46763 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene,0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200000ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 27211 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35393 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toluene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Toluene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Toluene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 200,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7652 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
30664 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) |
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 section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 one fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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 because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 46005 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total DDT in fish tissue is 15 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46006 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total DDT concentration of 1000 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
32138 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Total Trihalomethane (TTHM) |
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 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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 two water samples exceeded the California MCLs and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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 because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 33041 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total Trihalomethane (TTHM) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 2 samples exceeded the guidelines. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.(Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin, 2006). California primary Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) apply to ambient waters under the (Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin) "Chemical Constituents" objective. The primary MCL for Total Trihalomethanes is 0.080 mg/L (80 ug/L). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR | |||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at station 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 10/25/2005, and 5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP (2002) procedure. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
30665 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Toxaphene |
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 section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 one fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of 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 because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 45957 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxaphene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Toxaphene concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 45956 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxaphene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Fish fillet | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for toxaphene in fish tissue is 4.3 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
22056 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Trichloroethylene/TCE |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment cycle, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 7649 and 35406 are combined with each other for a use rating determination but the total sample size weren't sufficient to determine if water quality objective is met therefore both of LOEs received a use rating of insufficient information. LOEs 35402 and 46761 were combined to determine a final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 19 water exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7649 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35402 | ||||
Pollutant: | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Trichloroethylene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Trichloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 81 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 27212 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35406 | ||||
Pollutant: | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Trichloroethylene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The trichloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 2.7 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46761 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCE | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21958 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7656 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: 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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 6 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7656 | ||||
Pollutant: | Styrene | Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six water samples were collected in 5/2002 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.1 mg/l Styrene, and 0.15 mg/l Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected in 5/2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21789 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Turbidity |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7606 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle.Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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. Two of 17 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7606 | ||||
Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water quality measurements were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total measurements, two exceeded the CDPH SMCL . The exceedances were found in measurements collected on 4/09/2003 upstream of Imperial Dam, and 5/10/2005 at Imperial Dam grates (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 5 NTU for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water Standards | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Measurements were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water quality measurements were collected. Water quality measurements were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Measurements were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were measured in May and October 2002. An extra measurement was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location inn April 2003 The exceedances were found in measurements collected from 4/09/2003 through 5/10/2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21920 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Vinyl chloride |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7659 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: 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. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7659 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dichloromethane | Methyl bromide | Vinyl chloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six water samples were collected in 5/2002 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 4000 ug/l Methyl Bromide, 1600 ug/l Dichloromethane, and 525 ug/l Vinyl Chloride (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected in 5/2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21723 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Xylenes (total) (mixed) |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 19 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 33042 | ||||
Pollutant: | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two samples were collected and no samples exceeded the objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. California Maximum Containment Levels are incorporated by reference through the basin plan (Colorado River Basin Plan 2006). The California MCL for Xylenes is 1.75 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates-715CRIDG1. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21825 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Zinc |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE No. 32567 and 7637 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, these two LOEs were assessed based on two different water quality objectives values: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC) and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 32567 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. LOEs 35409 and 7679 were combined to determine a final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 23 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the drinking water MCL. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7625 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) of 459 mg/kg for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects (Macdonald et al, 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 32567 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 6 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for zinc. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples collected at station 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7679 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water Standards | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7637 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR hardness dependent criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Lead,Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35409 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Zinc. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The California Secondary MCL for zinc is 5.0 mg/L (Title 22 California Code of Regulations). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR title 22 section 64449. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35412 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Zinc. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for zinc is 459 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
21631 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 35018 is combined with LOE No. 46763 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35023 is combined with LOE No. 7652 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 23 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 27211 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35018 | ||||
Pollutant: | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endosulfan I criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35023 | ||||
Pollutant: | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule criteria for alpha-endosulfan to protect human health for waters that include the designated use of MUN is 110 ug/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46763 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene,0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200000ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7652 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7634 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location inn April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35027 | ||||
Pollutant: | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endosulfan I criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for alpha-endosulfan is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
21586 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 35136 is combined with LOE No. 46763 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35152 is combined with LOE No. 7652 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 23 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 35152 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), alpha | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, alpha. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The BHC, alpha criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.0039 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35136 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), alpha | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, alpha. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The BHC, alpha criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.013 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46763 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene,0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200000ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 27211 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7652 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21587 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 35169 is combined with LOE No. 46763 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 7652 is combined with LOE No. 35173 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 23 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7652 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46763 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene,0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200000ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 27211 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35169 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), beta | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, Beta. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The BHC, beta criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.046 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35173 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), beta | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, beta. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The BHC, beta criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
21641 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 35025 and 46763 were combined. LOEs 35040 and 7652 were also combined. 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 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 23 water exceeded the CTR criteria 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 27211 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7634 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location inn April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35044 | ||||
Pollutant: | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan II. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endosulfan II criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for beta-endosulfan is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46763 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene,0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200000ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7652 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35040 | ||||
Pollutant: | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan II. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule criteria for beta-endosulfan to protect human health for waters that include the designated use of MUN is 110 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35035 | ||||
Pollutant: | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan II. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Endosulfan II criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
21564 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 19 samples exceeded the California drinking MCL 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 35237 | ||||
Pollutant: | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Dichloroethylene, cis 1,2-. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for Dichloroethylene, cis 1,2- is 6 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21497 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | m-Dichlorobenzene |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46763 is combined with LOE No. 34752 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 34768 is combined with LOE No. 7652 for the aforementioned reasons. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7652 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 27211 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34752 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 3 -dichlorobenzene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 3-Dichlorobenzene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 1, 3-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 2,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34768 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 3 -dichlorobenzene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 3-Dichlorobenzene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 1, 3-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 400 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46763 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene,0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200000ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
22667 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | o-Dichlorobenzene |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 34746 and 46763 were combined. LOEs 34762 and 7652 were also combined to determine the use rating. 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 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 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 34762 | ||||
Pollutant: | o-Dichlorobenzene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichlorobenzene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for 1, 2-Dichlorobenzene is 600 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations ). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46763 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene,0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200000ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7652 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 27211 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34746 | ||||
Pollutant: | o-Dichlorobenzene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichlorobenzene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 1, 2-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 17,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21498 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 34773 and 46763 were combined. LOEs 34789 and 7652 were also combined to determine the use rating. 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 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 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 7652 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7674 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 46763 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene,0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200000ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34773 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 4 -dichlorobenzene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 4-Dichlorobenzene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 1, 4-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 2,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 34789 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1, 4 -dichlorobenzene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 4-Dichlorobenzene. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for 1, 4-Dichlorobenzene is 5 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 27211 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21615 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | pH |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Revised |
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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 14 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 26 samples is needed for application of table 3.2. 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 because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Staff 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: | 32364 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 5 samples were outside the pH range specified in the water quality objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at station 715CRIDG1 - Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data were collected during October 2005, May 2006 and 2007, October 2007, and April 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7708 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water quality measurements were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Eight measurements could not be used in this assessment because of equipment failure or lack of proper documentation. The 9 acceptable measurements were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location. Of these total measurements, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Measurements were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water quality measurements were collected. Water quality measurements were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Measurements were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were measured in May and October 2002. An extra measurement was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
30666 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Toxicity |
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2025 |
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 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of eight water samples exhibit toxicity when compared to control samples 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 Staff 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: | 31973 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Eight samples were collected to evaluate water toxicity. Two of the samples exhibited significant toxicity to Ceriodaphnia dubia reproduction. The toxicity test included survival and reproduction of Ceriodaphnia dubia and survial and biomass of Pimephales promelas. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided). | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 7 Basin Plan. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted with the significant effect code SL. SL is defined as the result being significant compared to the negative control based on a statistical test, less than stated the alpha level, AND less than the evaluation threshold. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Edition. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA-821-R-02-013 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at station 715CRIDG1. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected in April 2008, October 2005, 2007 and 2008 and May 2007 and 2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. Data results were recorded in the SWAMP database and follwed SWAMP protocols. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 31974 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four samples were collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. None of the samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity test included survival and growth of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided). | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 7 Basin Plan. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted with the significant effect code SL. SL is defined as the result being significant compared to the negative control based on a statistical test, less than stated the alpha level, AND less than the evaluation threshold. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at station 715CRIDG1. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected in April 2008 and May and October 2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. Data results were recorded in the SWAMP database and follwed SWAMP protocols. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
29215 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene | Chloroethane | Dichlorodifluoromethane | Methyl chloride (Chloromethane) | cis-1,3-Dichloropropene | trans-1,3-Dichloropropene |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane, Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, and 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane, Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, or 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane, Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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: | 29810 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene | Chloroethane | Dichlorodifluoromethane | Methyl chloride (Chloromethane) | cis-1,3-Dichloropropene | trans-1,3-Dichloropropene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six water samples were collected in 5/2002 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane, Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, or 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected in 5/2002 from the six locations. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
29065 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene | Bromobenzene | Cumene | delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) | n-Butylbenzene | n-Propylbenzene | sec-Butylbenzene | tert-Butylbenzene |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 135-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, and tert-Butylbenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 135-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene or the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 135-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene or the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy could be found. 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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: | 29544 | ||||
Pollutant: | delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Nine sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Nine sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed in May of 2002, November of 2003, and May of 2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. The rest of the locations were sampled in May of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29486 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene | Bromobenzene | Cumene | delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) | n-Butylbenzene | n-Propylbenzene | sec-Butylbenzene | tert-Butylbenzene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 135-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
29080 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | 1-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene | Naphthalene |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, and 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fraxctions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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: | 29547 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29492 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene | Naphthalene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
29211 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | 1-Methylphenanthrene | Phenanthrene |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Phenanthrene, and 1-Methylphenanthrene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene or the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene or the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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: | 29491 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1-Methylphenanthrene | Phenanthrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29546 | ||||
Pollutant: | 1-Methylphenanthrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
29066 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | 2-Chlorotoluene | 4-Chlorotoluene | p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene) |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, and p-Cymene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, or p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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: | 29487 | ||||
Pollutant: | 2-Chlorotoluene | 4-Chlorotoluene | p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, or p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
29216 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | 2-Hexanone | Acetone | Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) | Methyl isobutyl ketone (Methyl-2-Pentanone) |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, and 2-Hexanone consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, or 2-Hexanone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, or 2-Hexanone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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: | 29507 | ||||
Pollutant: | 2-Hexanone | Acetone | Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) | Methyl isobutyl ketone (Methyl-2-Pentanone) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six water samples were collected in 5/2002 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, or 2-Hexanone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected in 5/2002 from the six locations. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
21585 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: 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. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against 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 17 water samples exceeded California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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: | 27211 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7652 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
30107 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Aldrin | Chlorpyrifos | Diazinon | Toxaphene |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Acenaphthene, Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, and Toxaphene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthene, Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, or Toxaphene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthene, Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, or Toxaphene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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: | 29596 | ||||
Pollutant: | Acenaphthene | Aldrin | Chlorpyrifos | Diazinon | Toxaphene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
29022 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Aluminum | Manganese | Silver |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Aluminum, Manganese, and Silver consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aluminum, Manganese, or Silver for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aluminum, Manganese, or Silver for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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: | 29594 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aluminum | Manganese | Silver | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aluminum, Manganese, or Silver for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
28911 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl | Terbufos |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, and Terbufos consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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: | 29500 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl | Terbufos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29576 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
29237 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, and Benzo(k)Fluoranthene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, or Benzo(k)Fluoranthene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, or Benzo(k)Fluoranthene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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: | 29580 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, or Benzo(k)Fluoranthene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
29251 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Carbon (organic) |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess organic Carbon consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of organic carbon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of organic Carbon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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: | 29598 | ||||
Pollutant: | Carbon (organic) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Organic Carbon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
29090 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Chlorfenvinphos | Chlorpyrifos, methyl | Cuomaphos | Dicrotophos | Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos) | Fenchlorphos | Leptophos | Merphos | Mevinphos | Tetrachlorvinphos |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, and Chlorpyrifos Methyl consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos Methyl could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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: | 29496 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorfenvinphos | Chlorpyrifos, methyl | Cuomaphos | Dicrotophos | Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos) | Fenchlorphos | Leptophos | Merphos | Mevinphos | Tetrachlorvinphos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos, Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
29224 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Dibenzothiophene | o-Xylene |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Dibenzothiophene, and o-Xylene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene or the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene or the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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: | 29578 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dibenzothiophene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29506 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dibenzothiophene | o-Xylene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Nine water samples were generally collected biannually from 10/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed from 10/2002 through 5/2004 from the upstream of the Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam Grates locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. Samples were not collected in 5/2003 from the Imperial Dam grates, samples were not collected from upstream of the Imperial Dam in 11/2003 and 5/2004. The rest of the locations were only sampled in 10/2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
29231 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Dichlorobenzophenone | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene, and pp-DCBPconsistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene, or pp-DCBP for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene, or pp-DCBP for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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: | 29597 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dichlorobenzophenone | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene, or Dichlorobenzophenone (pp-DCBP) for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
29217 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, and Endosulfan Sulfate consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, or Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, or Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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: | 29581 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, or Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
29230 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Heptachlor, and Heptachlor Epoxide consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Heptachlor, or Heptachlor Epoxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Heptachlor, or Heptachlor Epoxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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: | 29582 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Heptachlor, or Heptachlor Epoxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
29238 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Methoxychlor | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, and Methoxychlor consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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: | 29595 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Methoxychlor | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
29225 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Hydroxide |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Hydroxide consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fraction of Hydroxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fraction of Hydroxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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: | 29508 | ||||
Pollutant: | Hydroxide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six water samples were collected in 5/2002 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guideline for Hydroxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected in 5/2002 from the six locations. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
29236 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Pheophytin a |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.7.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Pheophytin a consistent with Listing Policy section 3.7.1. No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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: | 29509 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pheophytin a | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six water samples were collected in 5/2002 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guideline for Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected in 5/2002 from the six locations. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
29223 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Streptococcus, fecal |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.3 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess fecal Streptococcus consistent with Listing Policy section 3.3. No evaluation guidelines for the total density of fecal Streptococcus for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the total density of fecal Streptococcus for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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: | 29505 | ||||
Pollutant: | Streptococcus, fecal | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fourteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guideline for Streptococcus for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. No samples were collected in 2003 from this location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
28921 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Total Petroeum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved and sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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: | 29504 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 13 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Thirteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 4/2003 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel, used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics (dro), for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Thirteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed from May of 2002 through May of 2003 from the upstream of the Imperial Dam location. Samples were collected in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29577 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fourteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines forthe sediment fractions Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel, used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics (dro), for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
29252 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | alpha-Chlordene | gama-Chlordene |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess alpha-Chlordene, and gamma-Chlordene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene or the sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene or the sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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: | 29494 | ||||
Pollutant: | alpha-Chlordene | gama-Chlordene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29573 | ||||
Pollutant: | alpha-Chlordene | gama-Chlordene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
29079 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | cis-Nonachlor | trans-Nonachlor |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess alpha-Nonachlor, and trans-Nonachlor consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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: | 29490 | ||||
Pollutant: | cis-Nonachlor | trans-Nonachlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 29545 | ||||
Pollutant: | cis-Nonachlor | trans-Nonachlor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
29091 |
Region 7 |
Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) |
||
Pollutant: | o,p'-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)) | o,p'-DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | o,p'-DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | p,p'-DDMU |
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)(2010) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, and p,p'-DDMU consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, or p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, or p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 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: | No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle. |
State Board Staff 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: | 29497 | ||||
Pollutant: | o,p'-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)) | o,p'-DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | o,p'-DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | p,p'-DDMU | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | |||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006). | ||||
Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).
No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, or p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||